SUBSCRIBE TO OUR FREE NEWSLETTER
Daily news & progressive opinion—funded by the people, not the corporations—delivered straight to your inbox.
5
#000000
#FFFFFF
5
#000000
#FFFFFF
jack smith
New Year's Eve Dump: House Releases Video and Transcript of Jack Smith Deposition
"There is no historical analog for what President Trump did in this case," Smith told members of the House Judiciary Committee.
Dec 31, 2025
Republicans on the House Judiciary Committee on Wednesday released both the transcript and video of former special counsel Jack Smith's December 17 testimony about his criminal cases against President Donald Trump that were shut down last year after Trump won the 2024 presidential election.
The release, which occurred as millions of Americans were preparing to celebrate New Year's Eve, revealed fresh insights into Smith's investigation and prosecution of the president, who had been indicted on charges related to the unlawful retention of top-secret government documents and his bid to illegally remain in power after losing the 2020 presidential election.
Among other things, Smith testified that he believed that Trump's false claims about fraud in the 2020 election were not protected by the First Amendment of the US Constitution because they were aimed at disrupting the certification of the election results on January 6, 2021, when Trump supporters violently stormed the US Capitol building and send lawmakers fleeing for their lives.
"There is no historical analog for what President Trump did in this case," Smith emphasized. "As we said in the indictment, he was free to say that he thought he won the election. He was even free to say falsely that he won the election. But what he was not free to do was violate federal law and use... knowingly false statements about election fraud to target a lawful government function."
Smith also testified that he and his team sought gag orders against Trump because the then-former president "was making statements that were endangering witnesses, intimidating witnesses, endangering members of my staff, endangering court staff."
Smith also said that he would "make no apologies" for requesting a gag order against Trump.
When asked about his decision to subpoena phone records of US senators during his investigation, Smith laid out why Trump had left him with no other option.
"I think who should be accountable for this is Donald Trump," he said. "These records are people, in the case of the senators, Donald Trump directed his co-conspirators to call these people to further delay the proceedings. He chose to do that. If Donald Trump had chosen to call a number of Democratic senators, we would have gotten toll records for Democratic senators. So responsibility for why these records, why we collected them... that lies with Donald Trump."
Commenting on the timing of the release, New York University law professor Ryan Goodman called it "an obvious attempt" by House Republicans to "bury" the information that Smith delivered during his testimony.
Keep ReadingShow Less
DOJ Suspends Prosecutors Who Accurately Described January 6 as a ‘Riot’ by a ‘Mob’
"The Trump administration is explicitly pro-January 6," wrote one critic. "You can get suspended from your job as a federal prosecutor for even acknowledging that there was a riot at the Capitol."
Oct 29, 2025
In the Trump administration's latest attempt to rewrite the history of the January 6, 2021 insurrection attempt at the US Capitol, the Department of Justice has suspended a pair of federal prosecutors who referred to the attack as a "riot" carried out by a "mob."
The Washington Post reported that assistant US attorneys Carlos Valdivia and Samuel White were told they were suspended on Wednesday, "hours" after filing a sentencing recommendation against Taylor Taranto, a Washington state man accused of participating in the attack on the Capitol in an effort to stop the certification of President Donald Trump's loss in the 2020 election.
Taranto allegedly entered the building and fought with Metro police officers as they tried to control the crowd, as well as other riot participants.
The case was not related to Taranto's actions at the Capitol in 2021—the charges against him were dropped after Trump issued blanket pardons to more than 1,500 people who took part in the riot.
Taranto was instead being sentenced for a "hoax" he perpetrated when he returned to Washington, DC two years later: He livestreamed himself making threats to several high-profile individuals, including former President Barack Obama, whose address he'd driven to after Trump had posted it to social media. He claimed—falsely, it turned out—that he'd outfitted his van with a car bomb that he planned to detonate outside the National Institute of Standards and Technology.
The sentencing document recommended that Taranto serve a 27-month sentence. However, what appears to have drawn the ire of the DOJ and led to the suspension of the prosecutors is how the document referred to the events at the Capitol, which it mentioned in passing as part of the case's factual background:
On January 6, 2021, thousands of people comprising a mob of rioters attacked the U.S. Capitol while a joint session of Congress met to certify the results of the 2020 presidential election. Taranto was accused of participating in the riot in Washington, DC, by entering the US Capitol Building. After the riot, Taranto returned to his home in the state of Washington, where he promoted conspiracy theories about the events of January 6, 2021.
As Politico reporter Kyle Cheney noted on social media, this description of the events of January 6 is "flatly accurate." Numerous pieces of video evidence show rioters using physical force and violence in an attempt to occupy the Capitol building.
As the New York Times described at the time, it was "perhaps the most widely documented act of political violence in history." Participants were recorded bashing through doors and windows. They were shown beating police officers with objects from flagpoles to fire extinguishers and attacking them with chemical irritants. They were also heard chanting for the execution of members of Congress and then-Vice President Mike Pence, who'd refused to take part in Trump's effort to stop the peaceful transfer of power.
A report by the nonpartisan Government Accountability Office released in 2023 found that the attack resulted in the injury of 174 law enforcement officers, while DOJ and Capitol administrators say it required over $3 million worth of cleanup and repairs.
According to two people familiar with the matter, who spoke to the Post on condition of anonymity for fear of retribution, White and Valdivia's description of these events as a "riot" and its participants as a "mob" resulted in their near immediate punishment.
They were told they were being furloughed due to the government shutdown and would be placed on administrative leave once it ended. According to ABC News, the pair of prosecutors was also locked out of their government-issued devices.
Notably, Trump's own handpicked US Attorney, Jeanine Pirro—a former Fox News host renowned for her undying loyalty to the president—also signed off on the document. However, unlike White and Valdivia, she has not reportedly received any punishment.
The DOJ has not issued a public comment on the decision, and it remains unclear whether the suspension of White and Valdivia will affect Taranto's sentencing. But it's not the first time the DOJ, headed by Attorney General Pam Bondi, has sought to punish those who prosecuted January 6 insurrectionists.
Dozens of the top prosecutors and FBI investigators who worked on cases against January 6 defendants and against Trump for inciting them have been fired.
Early in Trump's second term, the DOJ also demanded that the FBI turn over the identities of the more than 6,000 agents and other employees involved in investigating the attack. After Brian Driscoll, then the acting FBI director, attempted to resist the order, he was pushed out, and the identifying info was handed over.
Trump, meanwhile, has openly embraced the insurrectionists, describing them as "patriots," and attempted to push false theories attesting to their innocence—including that hundreds of agents placed by the "Biden FBI" started the insurrection, a claim that his own FBI director, Kash Patel, would refute.
On Wednesday, just hours before news broke of White and Valdivia's suspensions, Trump wrote on Truth Social that the "thugs" at the FBI who investigated Republican lawmakers over their roles in allegedly supporting the insurrection "should all be investigated and put in jail" and called Jack Smith, the special prosecutor who investigated the case against him for inciting the mob, "deranged" and "a criminal."
"The Trump administration is explicitly pro-January 6," wrote Matthew Gertz, a senior fellow at Media Matters for America, on social media. "You can get suspended from your job as a federal prosecutor for even acknowledging that there was a riot at the Capitol."
Keep ReadingShow Less
Trump Attacks the Right to a Lawyer
The presidential assault on the lawyers and law firms representing his litigation adversaries is an attack on the very foundation of the legal system.
Mar 12, 2025
In America’s legal system, both sides to a dispute are entitled to counsel. President Donald Trump rejects that premise because he prefers a one-sided battle that he is more likely to win.
To that end, he is using his special ability to combine vindictiveness with strategy. Wielding the power of the presidency, he is penalizing the attorneys who represent his opponents. Even more troubling, other lawyers are helping him undermine the foundation of our justice system.
Throughout his campaign, candidate Trump railed against his supposed “enemies.” In addition to prosecutors who pressed charges and judges who presided over cases against him, he promised “retribution” against private-sector lawyers who had represented his political adversaries. As president, he’s keeping that promise.
President Trump is not a lawyer, but he did swear to “preserve, protect, and defend the Constitution of the United States.” Who will hold him to that promise?
The president’s first attack came in early February when he revoked the security clearances of Mark Zaid and Norm Eisen—outspoken Trump critics. For decades, Mr. Zaid has represented whistleblowers in Republican and Democratic administrations, including the whistleblower at the center of President Trump’s first impeachment. Mr. Eisen helped House Democrats develop the articles of impeachment. Because the president “flooded the zone” with tariffs, terminations, and tantrums, those suspensions received little news coverage.
His second blow landed on February 25, 2025, when he issued an executive order suspending the security clearances of all attorneys and employees at Covington & Burling—a premier 1,300-attorney global law firm representing former special counsel Jack Smith. During the campaign, he had threatened Smith repeatedly with deportation and worse. Smith retained Covington, which represented him pro bono before he resigned as special counsel. The firm is still his defense counsel.
The executive order prevents Smith’s attorneys from accessing important government materials and makes defending him more challenging. Perhaps more importantly, it was also a warning to other attorneys contemplating the representation of anyone the president does not like.
The third attack occurred with the executive order of March 6. He suspended the security clearances of individuals at Perkins Coie—a global law firm of more than 1,200 attorneys worldwide. Among other penalties, the president instructed the heads of all federal agencies to limit Perkins employees’ access to federal government buildings.
At their core, the executive orders are a transparent effort to intimidate other attorneys who represent the president’s adversaries. For example, his stated justifications for the Perkins suspension are nonsensical. He complains about work that two partners at the firm, Marc Elias and Michael Sussman, did on behalf of the Clinton campaign in 2016. But both lawyers left Perkins years ago. Trump’s order also criticizes the firm’s involvement in successful challenges to voter restriction laws in Republican-controlled states. And he even includes the firm’s commitment to diversity, equity, and inclusion as a reason for its suspension.
The presidential assault on the lawyers and law firms representing his litigation adversaries is an attack on the very foundation of the legal system. The American College of Trial Lawyers (ACTL)—an elite body of litigation attorneys—responded immediately to his executive orders:
Lawyers throughout the country should unite in condemning these actions in the strongest possible terms.
The White House’s retaliating against a law firm merely because it represented a client against whom the Executive Branch has a grievance, threatens the bedrock principles of our system of justice. Under those principles, everyone is entitled to legal representation. In criminal matters, that right is enshrined in the Sixth Amendment to the Constitution.
The ACTL’s statement outlined the broader consequences of the president’s assault:
Lawyers cannot be denied access to the courts nor should their advocacy be throttled merely because the government disagrees with the positions asserted or because litigants seek to enjoin Executive actions that may violate statutory and constitutional rights of a free people. When government retaliation is grounded in efforts to punish lawyers for the parties that they represent or the positions that they assert, our system of justice is undermined.
Likewise, speaking for the entire profession, the American Bar Association declared, “These government actions deny clients access to justice and betray our fundamental values.”
To become a licensed member of the bar, every attorney swears an oath to uphold the Constitution. Every attorney is bound by rules of ethical conduct requiring them to support the rule of law. Every attorney has an obligation to enhance public confidence in the legal system. Yet attorneys drafted, reviewed, and approved the executive orders that are undermining the bedrock principles of our justice system.
President Trump is not a lawyer, but he did swear to “preserve, protect, and defend the Constitution of the United States.” Who will hold him to that promise? Asking for a friend of democracy.
Keep ReadingShow Less
Most Popular